About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
: for the first time, pentagon leaders said today they had supported arming the rebels in syria. defense secretary leon panetta and general martin dempsey chair of the joint chiefs said they made that recommendation to president obama. panetta told a senate hearing that, in the end, the president decided against sending in arms. instead, the u.s. has provided only humanitarian aid to the rebels. secretary panetta also defended the military's response to the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. the assault killed ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. panetta testified there'd been no specific warning of an imminent attack, so u.s. forces were too far away to respond. >> the united states military, as i've said, is not and frankly should not be a 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world. the u.s. military has neither the resources nor the responsibility to have a firehouse next to every u.s. facility in the world. >> sreenivasan: republican senator john mccain of arizona argued the military could have deploye
, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in which this person, particular person is cooperative or not vis-À-vis capturing the person. in any event, they have a standard. names are nominated. it goes through an interagency process. and finally it makes it to the president. and he makes the final decision who is or is not on the list. does that sound like what you understand? >> i think that's certainly what the government has said happens. and, of course, this is the problem is that the only thing that we ever know about the counterintelligence stuff over the last 10 or 11 years has been, you know, what the government has been forced to say, what journalists have been able to find out, or what human rights organizations like ours have been able to find out on the ground.
to that point, all of a sudden we've got 3,000 dead americans, the trade towers are taken out, the pentagon's been hit. if it hadn't been for the folks on 93 they'd have taken out the white house or the capitol on washington, d.c. worst attack in our history. worse than pearl harbor by far. and it was our job to make certain it didn't happen again. we were concerned for a couple of rps, partly because the expectation was there would be a follow on attack, nearly everybody believed it. but we also received intelligence that al qaeda was trying to get their hands on deadlier weapons. >> rose: do you regret nothing about the aftermath in terms of how we -- >> regarding 9/11? >> rose: everything that we did and that you were and the president were at the center of the response to 9/11. look back and say "we regret nothing"? >> that's my view. >> rose: none? >> correct. >> rose: you know this has been debated, too. >> sure. >> rose: were we prepared for the consequences after saddam was overthrown? >> well, that was the second proposition. you asked me about the aftermath of 9/11, the policies w
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)